Category: Uncategorized

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall; All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, Couldn’t put Humpty together again.” This fun nursery rhyme is borrowed straight from military history. Humpty Dumpty represents the gigantic siege cannon that Royalists set at the top of St.Mary’s Church tower during Civil War but did not use it, ultimately the opposing party blew up the wall and Humpty Dumpty had his big fall. Similarly Russian Military had their fall against Ukraine by underestimating them.

Pompous Putin made a fatal mistake of looking down on Ukraine. He thought Ukraine was weak while Russian forces were gigantic sharks. But he forgot that powerful armaments help the war but “unity”, “wit”, “knowledge”, “judgment”, and “determination”, these play a crucial role in winning a battle. Sometimes little trickeries and act of deceit takes a team long way in the battlefield. For example, Ukraine carried out many guerrilla attacks and destroyed elite Russian troops. Ukraine may not be mightier than Russia but definitely wittier. As the historian Barbara Tuchman said “A commander who combines resolve with keen strategic intelligence can achieve impressive results.”

Another lesson we can learn from the Ukraine-Russian war is that change is the only constant in life and those who cannot adhere to change will always hover. Ukraine adapted to a modernised command philosophy which encouraged subordinates to deal with the circumstances at hand and commanders will join if things get awry. In my opinion this was a smart move by Ukraine, because soldiers in the war zone facing the battle will better understand the seriousness of an action than someone sitting at the headquarter giving orders. It is a question of common sense. Russian command philosophy on the other hand is more hierarchical, they do not encourage subordinates to make any decisions. Therefore, they had to rely on their commanders’ instructions. And, those bull-headed Russian commanders did change their tactics when needed, their pride was too big. Russia’s arrogance caused their major strategic defeat.

Another thing that Ukraine had and Russia did not was trust amongst officials. Ukraine did a team work and they had a purpose to protect their home. I learnt a very important life lesson from Ukraine that in order to achieve something a person’s intention is very important and our mind is the most powerful weapon.

Sources : https://remote.baruch.cuny.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=157559851&site=ehost-live

I would like to focus on The New York Times reading, “The U.S. and Russia Need to Start Talking Before It’s Too Late.” This opinion focuses on both the unknown of Russia’s plans and the armament of Ukraine by the west, specifically the United States. This article was written in July 2022 and clearly things have changed since. I will state that I am not a fan of the half in and half out policy the United States is taking in this war in regards to supplying armament, but not man power.

The United States being a hegemony has become a gift and a curse. It has allowed the country to prosper, but is expected to contribute and assist more with foreign policy. It is clearly displayed in the article where the author states the United States has pledged $24 billion while Europe has pledged $12 billion together. I would argue that Europe is at more of a threat due to their location and should be providing much more assistance than the United States. As of July 2023, the Council on Foreign Relations reports that the United States has given more than $75 billion in assistance. (https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts). This is more than the recent EU plan to provide $18 billion a year to Ukraine through 2027. (https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-plans-e72-billion-of-new-common-debt-to-aid-ukraine/). This is all while the United States is suffering from inflation domestically.

I am concerned with the armament that the United States is also providing. This article discusses Biden’s plans to arm Ukraine to defend and to not escalate the war. The United States has defied that by recently approving their F-16 fighter jets to be sent to Ukraine through Denmark and the Netherlands. These may deter the Russians from air attacks, but as history shows Putin does not back down and these will possibly only escalate the war to another level. The United States has also sent artillery systems, rocket launch systems, anti air missiles, howitzers, mortars, various Unmanned Aerial System platforms, helicopters, javelins and many other small arms. This assistance outweighs all other countries contributions combined.

As I stated above, I do not like the amount of assistance we are giving. First, it is because domestically the United States is not in the best shape and this money can be used to benefit Americans. Second, we have seen this before. When the United States assisted the mujahedeen during the Soviet invasion, they provided Stinger missiles to counter Soviet aircraft. This was advanced technology at the time, something the United States regretted. After that invasion and the build up of the Taliban and Al-Qaddafi, the United States went on a witch hunt to recover the hundreds of stingers in Afghanistan with the fear of them being used against the United States. Hopefully all this armament provided will not repeat this situation whether it ends up in the hands of Ukraine, Russia or another country.

It is interesting to notice that, in Latin America, the Russian invasion of Ukraine found many supporters in the left, unlike what happened in the United States (and in most of Europe), where such support is mostly found in right-wing circles (which, by the way, also happened In Latin America, leaving us with the unusual situation of both extremes of the political spectrum supporting the same side in an international conflict).

The reasons behind the position taken by a sizeable portion of the Latin American left are not difficult to identify: their deep-rooted anti-Americanism, a misplaced sense of loyalty towards Russia because of its Soviet past, and the longing for a multipolar world.

As we can see, the reasons for left-wing support of Russia in Latin America are completely different than those behind American right-wing sympathy for Putin – to some extent they are contradictory. But there is one common element: the desire (albeit for different reasons) for a retrenchment of the United States, the perception that the country has overextended its presence throughout the world.

It is no surprise, therefore, that among the various justifications offered by the Russian government (and its propaganda machine) for the invasion (which include fighting a “nazi” government in Kiyv and protecting Russian minorities in Eastern Ukraine), none has gained more traction among the more articulate members of the American right and the Latin American left than putting the blame on the expansion of NATO, using the same rationale as the one employed by Mearsheimer in this week’s reading, when talking about the invasion of Crimea in 2014.

***

Latin American and US Putin apologists profess to be adopting, therefore, a “realist” approach to interpret (in reality, to justify) the invasion of Ukraine.

I find it really hard to view as “realist” an invasion that, for many different, reasons, will render Russia weaker and more exposed to foreign menaces than it was a mere couple of years ago. As Professor Wallerstein already pointed out, the invasion contributed to a further expansion of NATO, and reenergized the alliance. The abysmal performance of Russian armed forces in Ukraine surely decreased the fear and respect they commanded abroad. Russia demographic issues are being further complicated by the very large number of casualties in the front and the flight of many young Russians after the war started. The war has arguably enfeebled the Russian sponsored Collective Security Treaty Organization. In September 2022 Azerbaijan initiated its largest attack on the Republic of Armenia in the history of the conflict between the two countries. Armenia has unsuccessfully requested that the Collective Security Treaty Organization and Russia independently intervene. Russia declined to provide assistance, in a decision probably linked to the extensive use of troops in Ukraine. The economic sanctions imposed by Western countries, although not being able to completely cripple the Russian economy, have significantly impacted it, and have turned Russia even more dependent on the trade with China. The political and economic bridges with Germany, painstakingly built since the 1960s, have been suddenly severed. The list could go on and is bound to become larger the longer the conflict lasts.

One surprising thing about “The Lost Art of American Diplomacy: Can the State Department be Saved?” by William Burns, is that the author remembers a time when American diplomacy was anything but self-serving. This may be because I was born in 2000, but I don’t think I could come up with a first-hand account of the America that occupied the moral high ground in the aftermath of the Cold War. The article discusses the idea of “diplomatic disarmament”. That is a fascinating phrase if one really stops to think about it. Diplomacy is a weapon at our disposal the way a nuclear missile is? How many other things have had the word disarmament attached to them?

Upon reading further and thinking some on my own, I believe that, yes, diplomacy is that powerful. The key to diplomacy that holds this power is effective diplomacy. Take China, for example, particularly with its relationships with Middle Eastern and African countries. Predatory lending may be a go-to for China – a serious problem in its own right – but the true secret of its success is that it understands the immediate needs and desires of a given country. This phenomenon is not limited to less developed countries with struggling economies. China has been buying up Israeli kibbutzim and construction companies. Saudi Arabia and Iran joining BRICS would be no small event. On the other hand, you have American foreign policy, which, especially under Trump, can be summed up as “I have the biggest, baddest military in the world so listen to me or I’ll get really mad”. With “America first” isolationism skyrocketing, and even our less isolationist presidents like Obama refusing to join new multilateral systems such as the AIIB, is it any wonder America’s influence is waning?

The article made many useful suggestions, but the one that I think stood out was perhaps the most intuitive. The State Department should do reviews of policy, tactics, strategy, and spending the way the Defense Department does. If we assume the worst-case scenario and none of the next 5 presidents have any interest in responsible foreign policy, then the State Department must step up and inform the administration of best practices. Of course, the Secretary of State and their Department cannot willfully disobey the President, but how many conversations between Assistant Secretaries and agricultural attaches from African countries or even the Secretary of State and the Lebanese Ambassador does the President even normally know about? I believe the solution to the foreign policy dilemma will come in the form of a grassroots movement. Any sweeping reforms will likely be shut down by the isolationist block. What we need is for FSOs, CSOs, and think tanks to come up with smaller practical solutions and best practices to show the world that the USA is still very much interested in a relationship with the rest of the world.

Unilateralism versus Multilateralism

Trump; whenever I hear this name reminds me of a very old friend of mine, who was confused about his “relationship status”. He wanted a marriage but did not know how to be a responsible husband. Likewise, Trump wanted power and the tag “President of the world” but overlooked his responsibility to unite the nations.

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) on which former President Obama put huge emphasis on; is what I feel would have given United States a substantial advantage on trade’s and would also have also posed a better defence against China rising to power. But Trump withdrew from it in 2016, questioning it’s merit, starting a trade war with China and imposing trade barriers and tariffs on the neighbouring country’s, more so as a retaliation U.S faced the similar consequences of it’s actions. Trump also stated that “NAFTA was the cash cow of Mexico which took all the jobs from the United States.”, while I do agree with Trump in this case because of NAFTA U.S businesses were moving to Mexico for it’s lower labor and production costs.

As the the French ambassador posted in United States stated ”How do we make” our relations with America “work with a US leadership that doesn’t want to play the role of leader?”. The resemblance of this statement is uncanny with the ex girlfriend of my friend. She said something similar and left. Therefore Trump losing the 2020 presidential election did not come as a surprise. He put USA’s leadership at stake especially by underplaying COVID.

Sources : https://guides.newman.baruch.cuny.edu/ld.php?er_attachment_id=920927